Ratings - Not Rewarding Good Play
- Thread starter Scizor
- Start date
- Status
vanderbilt_grad
New Member
So you just go to every Battle Road, City, State, etc. you can and go 1-0 in all of them. That should net you a nice x-0 record eh?
You guys really think out of the box. Obviously you can still achieve legitimacy out of win % by requiring that a player fully plays out 1 CC, 1 State, 1 Regional, etc with 50 games minimum or something along those lines. I guess some people (even mods) like to come in and derail my thread with nonsense.
SuperWooper
New Member
I have a record of 80-19, that's a little over 80% for anyone who is mathmaticially challenged.
I also got 4th place at my regionals. I was playing for around 10 hours... I was rewarded with 4.6 points for this effort... How is that for sour grapes?
I also got 4th place at my regionals. I was playing for around 10 hours... I was rewarded with 4.6 points for this effort... How is that for sour grapes?
NoPoke
Active Member
Using Win/Loss record is a perfectly good proposal. ( I have to say that don't I)
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=53108
The difficulty, as with the present rating system, is one of making it work without lots of unfortunate side effects.
Squirtle what was your match win-loss record at the tournament where your rating only went up a little? Did it match your 81% season to date Win%?
http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=53108
The difficulty, as with the present rating system, is one of making it work without lots of unfortunate side effects.
Squirtle what was your match win-loss record at the tournament where your rating only went up a little? Did it match your 81% season to date Win%?
Last edited:
Diaz
New Member
Matches Won: 91 | Matches Lost: 24 | Total Matches Played: 115
Thats about 79%, but its alot more games played than most people. I think its probably harder to keep up 80% as the season goes on. I feel that the win% idea would encourage players to get that 80% with X number of games early (before the end of cities) and sit out until worlds. I'd rather not do that.
Thats about 79%, but its alot more games played than most people. I think its probably harder to keep up 80% as the season goes on. I feel that the win% idea would encourage players to get that 80% with X number of games early (before the end of cities) and sit out until worlds. I'd rather not do that.
Ugggghhhhh...............that sucks lemons!!!!!!!!
I didn't make it to regionals ans got 0.0 points and went up in ranking, and my daughter went down 1 rank by ten points for not playing, I guess to go up is to win, win, win, win, win, win,.....................................and the player above you lose, lose, lose, lose...................................:biggrin:
Almost any ranking system used would have potential for abuse or some amount of unfairness. There is some “luck” in almost any sport too. If a NFL team was in the playoffs and their star player couldn’t play in the next game because he got sick or injured, then that’d be bad luck on their part, which could ruin their chances for the Super Bowl. With that said, I do think the system could be improved, and, of course, there's a lot more luck involved in Pokemon than most other sports, but it’s impossible to make a ranking system 100% fair to every player in every situation.
As far as dominant players being bad for tournaments, I disagree. In any sport or competition, dominant players or teams will always rise. It can be disheartening to some, but to others, it pushes them to be better. At tournaments, I’ve noticed that some players are just there to have fun and win some cards. They aren’t playing for rating or an invite to worlds. These players aren’t affected too much by the dominant ones. Those that are worried about their ranking are usually those able to compete with the dominant player on some level. It works out for the most part.
I play in tournaments because my son does. I go to have fun and do not take competitive decks. At Regionals, I happen to bring a good deck and had some luck on my side. I ended up placing T8. I beat some very good players along the way. I know now by winning that I cost them a lot of premier points, where I was just looking to win my son a few cards. Honestly, that makes me feel bad.
Has anyone thought of making the first loss in a tournament a “mulligan”? You wouldn't lose premier points your first loss, this would help keep high ranking players from losing a ton of points for a dreaded first round T2 donk. Would it help to give players the option to enter a tournament without their premier rating at stake? For their opponents, the player’s premier rating would be considered 1600. These are just some suggestions.
Thanks,
As far as dominant players being bad for tournaments, I disagree. In any sport or competition, dominant players or teams will always rise. It can be disheartening to some, but to others, it pushes them to be better. At tournaments, I’ve noticed that some players are just there to have fun and win some cards. They aren’t playing for rating or an invite to worlds. These players aren’t affected too much by the dominant ones. Those that are worried about their ranking are usually those able to compete with the dominant player on some level. It works out for the most part.
I play in tournaments because my son does. I go to have fun and do not take competitive decks. At Regionals, I happen to bring a good deck and had some luck on my side. I ended up placing T8. I beat some very good players along the way. I know now by winning that I cost them a lot of premier points, where I was just looking to win my son a few cards. Honestly, that makes me feel bad.
Has anyone thought of making the first loss in a tournament a “mulligan”? You wouldn't lose premier points your first loss, this would help keep high ranking players from losing a ton of points for a dreaded first round T2 donk. Would it help to give players the option to enter a tournament without their premier rating at stake? For their opponents, the player’s premier rating would be considered 1600. These are just some suggestions.
Thanks,
Last edited:
If I recall, Squirtle was 5-2 in swiss....won 1st 2 rds in SEF and lost t4 (t16 cut) = 7-3 match record for the day. (Correct me if I am wrong Stephen)
Keith
I didn't post to derail your thread. I posted to show how win % can't always be a good determination of skill.
Who gets to decide how many games the player has to play before their win % is looked at? "1 CC, 1 State, 1 Regional, etc with 50 games minimum"? What about the players that might not get around to a city, but go undefeated at Regionals?
My point is that any system you can think of, it would just make the current system more complicated than it already is. People are not going to like the system regardless of what the system is. If you change it to the system you like, people are still going to find problems with it.
It never hurts to propose new ideas, I am not against that, I am just saying that it isn't the best idea to claim that another system would be so much better when it wouldn't really be that much different.
Who gets to decide how many games the player has to play before their win % is looked at? "1 CC, 1 State, 1 Regional, etc with 50 games minimum"? What about the players that might not get around to a city, but go undefeated at Regionals?
My point is that any system you can think of, it would just make the current system more complicated than it already is. People are not going to like the system regardless of what the system is. If you change it to the system you like, people are still going to find problems with it.
It never hurts to propose new ideas, I am not against that, I am just saying that it isn't the best idea to claim that another system would be so much better when it wouldn't really be that much different.
Lawman is correct.
My grapes aren't all that sour, because 7-3 isn't very solid at all. It's just that at a regional where you play for 8+ hours and I finish 4th I should get more than a box =/. No Scholarship for 3rd/4th rly stinks!(or bonus points or something!)
My grapes aren't all that sour, because 7-3 isn't very solid at all. It's just that at a regional where you play for 8+ hours and I finish 4th I should get more than a box =/. No Scholarship for 3rd/4th rly stinks!(or bonus points or something!)
Everyone should go to have fun, I play because I have fun, I like humans, it keeps my mind fresh and win some cards etc....
Don't feel bad, if they lost points its not your fault, they need the experience to play better for the future.
Last edited:
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but we all knew (if not, it was listed) of the prizes.
Well, yeah it may be harder to keep up a high % throughout the season, but I still finished at 81% last year and I am currently at 84% and only one of those events was a City Championship. The other three were States and Regionals, so I'm not exactly beating up on cupcake events.
So far the win %s i have seen are proving my point.
So far the win %s i have seen are proving my point.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Mmmm, now time for a far-reaching view on the topic of the system not valuing player skill. However, to really get a good feel for the issue, let's take a look at this season's K-Values, which I feel are critical to fairness:
Battle Road Fall: 8K
City Championships: 16K
State Championships: 32K
Regional Championships: 40K
Battle Road Spring: 8K
Nationals: 44K
What I think is good about these k-values
-Progression. You have smaller events being worth less, and larger events being worth more. BR's and Cities are clearly not enough to earn an invite, which is good.
-Consideration of "trapped" players who cannot attend nationals...Hence Regionals being worth only 4K less than "the big show."
What I think could be improved about these K-values
-Further recognition of event similarities/differences. While Battle Roads were nerfed with widespread approval, POP should still recognize that these events are not significantly different from city championships...Or at least not 8K's difference. Now...I don't know about you guys, but when Ludicolo wins four battle roads, four cities, and T4's states/regionals, I think he deserves worlds; however, because of the Battle Road nerfing, he may not get that, even though he has displayed a long-lasting ability to succeed.
-A more even spread of K-values. Although POP owes us no explanation for its K-values unless it impacts our contribution to the brand, certain elements of the structure seem random, such as the 16K jump between Cities and States.
Tentative Proposal
Battle Roads: 12K
City Championships: 16K
State Championships: 24K
Regional Championships: 32K
National Championships: 40K
Note: I do NOT claim to be an expert of the ELO system, or even of general fairness in the system (after all, Battle Roads are worth half of a state)...However, some clear-cut formulation of my message is essential to going anywhere with it. Take this with a grain of salt!
P.S. Let's bounce some ideas back and forth with this K-Value thing, but I have a VERY important issue to emphasize about the ELO system later: the resistance-fueled phenomenon of "5th is better than 4th." Just keep that concern in mind, because POP _has_ to implement some solution to the ranking system's biggest failure.
Battle Road Fall: 8K
City Championships: 16K
State Championships: 32K
Regional Championships: 40K
Battle Road Spring: 8K
Nationals: 44K
What I think is good about these k-values
-Progression. You have smaller events being worth less, and larger events being worth more. BR's and Cities are clearly not enough to earn an invite, which is good.
-Consideration of "trapped" players who cannot attend nationals...Hence Regionals being worth only 4K less than "the big show."
What I think could be improved about these K-values
-Further recognition of event similarities/differences. While Battle Roads were nerfed with widespread approval, POP should still recognize that these events are not significantly different from city championships...Or at least not 8K's difference. Now...I don't know about you guys, but when Ludicolo wins four battle roads, four cities, and T4's states/regionals, I think he deserves worlds; however, because of the Battle Road nerfing, he may not get that, even though he has displayed a long-lasting ability to succeed.
-A more even spread of K-values. Although POP owes us no explanation for its K-values unless it impacts our contribution to the brand, certain elements of the structure seem random, such as the 16K jump between Cities and States.
Tentative Proposal
Battle Roads: 12K
City Championships: 16K
State Championships: 24K
Regional Championships: 32K
National Championships: 40K
Note: I do NOT claim to be an expert of the ELO system, or even of general fairness in the system (after all, Battle Roads are worth half of a state)...However, some clear-cut formulation of my message is essential to going anywhere with it. Take this with a grain of salt!
P.S. Let's bounce some ideas back and forth with this K-Value thing, but I have a VERY important issue to emphasize about the ELO system later: the resistance-fueled phenomenon of "5th is better than 4th." Just keep that concern in mind, because POP _has_ to implement some solution to the ranking system's biggest failure.
Last edited:
I've seen weird things happen with the ratings. My kid won CO states going 7-2. Another kid went 6-1 (undefeated in swiss but lost in Top8), yet he got nearly the same number of premier points. I'm of the opinion that swiss-round ratings should be separted from playoff-round ratings.
I would like to see the return of invitations awarded for top finishers at major premier events, maybe not trips, but at least invitations.
Anyway, the ranking system rewards late-bloomers and penalizes early-bloomers.
I would like to see the return of invitations awarded for top finishers at major premier events, maybe not trips, but at least invitations.
Anyway, the ranking system rewards late-bloomers and penalizes early-bloomers.
- Status